Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

You do understand that "Africa" isn't one unit, don't you? That the gene frequencies in North Africa are different from southern Africa, and always have been?

Egypt and the Levant always looked like a genetic patchwork, because genes ALWAYS flowed through there. Always.

For a source, feel free to consult exactly the same book I mentioned earlier.

Ugh.

You seem to have this dichotomy in your head: all "indigenous" "black" Africans on one side of the modern Suez canal, all "foreign" Middle Easterners on the other, and no interbreeding until Hellenic times. History didn't really work that way.

These people had been intermarrying for millenia before Egypt developed.

(NORTHERN EUROPE, for that matter, contains about 20% Neolithic Middle Eastern farmer DNA). -- again, see same source.

...With that being said, your "black" versus "white" categorization system plays into 19th century racial attitudes in a way that undermines your progressive social ideas. Race isn't as biologically simple as you present it, and a geneticist could only separate people into "races" by twisting the historical record AND genetic evidence beyond the breaking point.

 

EDIT: I'll also add that Africa has always been far more genetically diverse than the rest of the world, so treating it like a single block makes even less sense.

The Egyptians might have looked "black" in the modern sense, or they might not have looked "black". If you want to say "The Egyptians looked black," then that's fine. I won't argue with you, since I don't care. I never saw Hatshepsut in person.*

I just don't think that your distinction between "African" and "non-African" like they're two obviously distinct groups holds any water.


* Please notice this point. All you need to do if you want to "win" this part of the debate is to say, "I think the ancient Egyptians looked black by modern standards", and I will not argue with you, since it's quite plausible. I just object to the way that you characterize "African" lineage versus everybody else.

 

Good stuff...Didn't read the entire debate but interesting none the less. Tracing Egyptian lineage is near impossible. They had so many influences. Don't forget Alexander's conquest...By the time of Pompey the Great, the Romans had a constant garrison there and were marrying and therefore breeding...What we know of Egypt at this time, which is probably much later than you two are talking, is that they were not predominantly "black Africans." Some were there but mostly in the servant caste, caste being used loosely...In any event, race in North Africa ic very interesting. When did the Carthagenians get there. Where were they from initially, ect, ect

 

Yep, and all this stuff about "race" is totally irrelevant. Even if the Egyptians looked "black", I fail to see why modern Americans -- white or black -- should care one way or another. You don't get brownie points for the achievements of ancient people who looked like you.

Even if the Egyptians were (random for-instance) Ethiopian, it changes nothing. Most "white" Americans come from Northern Europe, and most "black" Americans derive about 80% of their genes from WEST Africa. Neither group has the same genetic profile as East Africans. Neither could claim the Egyptians as their ancestors.

 

Yes. Its very goofy to celebrate an ancient achievement as one of your own. I didn't mean it was interesting for the sake of an agenda. Its interesting for the sake of history.

 

Agreed. :good

 

You could spend a lifetime studying race and never reach any relevant conclusions other than adaptive physiology. All other attempts to classify race, usually espoused by one group seeking legitimacy over another, have failed.

 

Either you're really ignorant of the subject matter or you're being intellectually dishonest. In the view of the Ancient Egyptians, the Land of Punt is the land of their origin. They referred to it as the Land of the Gods.

Ta Seti is the first Nome of Ancient Egypt. It also just happens to be in Lower "Nubia".

Egyptians did not look at all "foreigners" as being barbarians.

And as far as dark skin is concerned, Egyptians venerated the color black and depicted their great Ancestor as having jet black skin.

 

Heh heh...my turn.

Sources?


Also, a lot of the stuff you just posted doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

North African genes are no less African than West, South or East African genes.

In fact, the dominant Y chromosome in E/NE Africa is E3b. The dominant Y chromosome of West Africa is E3a. They are BOTH subsets of the E3 haplogroup. The E3 haplogroup along with it's descendant haplotypes E3a and E3b are indigenous to the African continent.

Yes, from Africa into the Levant.

Plenty of studys have been done which prove that there has been no significant gene flow from Eurasia into NE Africa to have an impact on the indigenous populations there during the predynastic and dynastic Egypt.

Like who?

Tell me, who were the people who migrated back into NE Africa to have a significant impact on the indigenous populations there?

What does Northern Europe have to do with NE Africa?

Tropical adaptation has *nothing* to do with race.

 

I'm sorry but no.

You have produced 0 sources. Not a single link.

Ante up before you ask me to do so...

 

I can direct the same statement towards you.

 

In that case, almost every gene is an "African" gene. The genes that developed when the ice sheets separated Africa from Europe and the Middle East represent a tiny fraction of the whole, especially since the ice sheets promptly dropped again, and people continued breeding as per usual.

:wall

Intermarrying. Genes do not flow only by mass migrations and invasions.

Again, your assumptions are as follows: There are Africans and non-Africans. It has always been thus. Genes are either African or non-African, apparently, and any genetic similarities must come from one group importing/exporting said genes.

In reality, the "indigenous" population you mention was always a mixed bag, a genetic blend of people to their north, south, east, and west. You know, kinda like all races and populations.

Feel free to post these studies nevertheless.

You really don't see why I mentioned them?

So what are you arguing, exactly?

You're conflating "black", "African", and "tropically adapted" in this thread, which makes it difficult to follow your argument. At some points, you use them interchangeably, while at other points, you draw distinctions whenever it's inconvenient

What are you trying to prove? That Egyptians looked "black" by modern standards? That they were "tropically adapted", but may or may not have looked black? That some of their genes came from Africa, regardless of whether those genes carried tropical adaptations or made them look black?

What?